var a = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
a[i] = i;
var b = new Set(a)
return a.includes(900)
return b.has(900)
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
includes | |
lookup |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
includes | 240698.1 Ops/sec |
lookup | 1434139.8 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark.
What is tested on the provided JSON?
The provided JSON represents two test cases for a JavaScript microbenchmarking scenario. The tests are designed to compare the performance of Array.prototype.includes()
and Set.prototype.has()
, both used to check if an element exists within a specific array or set, respectively.
Options compared:
Array.prototype.includes()
vs. Set.prototype.has()
lookup
(uses b.has(900)
) vs. includes
(uses a.includes(900)
)Pros and cons of each approach:
Array.prototype.includes()
for large datasets.Library and purpose:
The Set
object is a built-in JavaScript data structure that stores unique values. It's used here to simulate a set for fast lookup of element existence. The Array.prototype.includes()
method is also a built-in JavaScript method that checks if an element exists within the array.
Special JS feature or syntax:
None mentioned in this specific benchmark.
Other alternatives:
For large datasets, alternative approaches can be explored:
In the context of this benchmark, Set.prototype.has() is likely to be faster due to its optimized implementation for fast lookups. However, for smaller datasets or specific requirements, Array.prototype.includes() might still be a suitable choice.
Benchmark preparation code:
The script preparation code creates an array a
with 1000 elements and then creates a set b
from that array using the spread operator (var b = new Set(a)
). This setup ensures that both tests are operating on the same dataset, allowing for accurate comparisons between Array.prototype.includes()
and Set.prototype.has()
.